Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Whats been spotted in and around our Navy
User avatar
MikeJames
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 1451
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 09:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: RAN DDL HMAS Kokoda
Australian Coast Guard cutter Nemesis
RAN FCPB HMAS Wollongong
German SAR Launch DGzRS Berln
SS Geest Atlas (Building)
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby MikeJames » 28 Mar 2017 14:38

Navy's largest ships unable to join Cyclone Debbie emergency response amid engine troubles
Exclusive by defence reporter Andrew Greene
Updated about 5 hours ago

Image
PHOTO: HMAS Adelaide is currently docked at Sydney's Garden Island Naval base. (File Photo: CPL Kyle Genner)

Engineers are frantically working to solve engine problems on the Royal Australian Navy's two largest ships, with fears the Landing Helicopter Docks (LHDs) could be out of action for several weeks.

The Canberra Class Amphibious Assault Ships HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide are currently docked at Sydney's Garden Island Naval Base where maintenance crews are trying to identify and resolve issues with the LHDs' cutting-edge Azipod propulsion system.

Defence sources have confirmed to the ABC they currently expect the problem will take between seven and 10 days to address, but if further complications are found, the 27,000-tonne ships could remain sidelined for even longer.

The Defence Force insists the inspections have "had no impact on Navy meeting its operational tasks".

In a statement to the ABC on Monday night the Defence Department confirmed a propulsion issue had been identified on board HMAS Canberra during recent trials with military helicopters.

"As a prudent measure, the same inspections were conducted on HMAS Adelaide and identified emergent issues," it said in a statement.

"It is too early to determine the extent of this emergent work and Defence is working to identify the causes and develop a repair strategy."

Unavailable ships a 'significant failure': Feeney

Federal Opposition MP David Feeney, who sits on Parliament's Joint Standing Committee for Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade, said it was a worrying development.

"The news that both of our major amphibious ships are unavailable for service in this Queensland cyclone period is very, very troubling and represents a significant failure," Mr Feeney said.

"The good news is that the capability gap can be filled by HMAS Choules, a vessel procured by the former Labor government in 2010, but nonetheless these amphibious ships are designed for precisely this work that they're now not able to do."

Mr Feeney demanded the Government provide a full explanation of the problems.

"The Government does need to explain to us precisely what is the engineering problem that they're confronting, how did it happen, and I think, very importantly, will these ships be available for service in Operation Talisman Sabre [in July]."

On Monday, the Chief of Defence, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin, said the military was well positioned to provide immediate assistance to local communities within Cyclone Debbie's storm zone, if requested.

"We are ready and able to respond to this emergency in support of civilian emergency authorities and the residents of north-eastern Queensland once the full impact of [Cyclone] Debbie is known," he said.

As a precaution, HMAS Choules — the nominated HADR (Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief) ship — left Sydney on Monday morning to head to Queensland "to be ready to support recovery efforts if required".
Last edited by MikeJames on 28 Mar 2017 14:39, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MikeJames
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 1451
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 09:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: RAN DDL HMAS Kokoda
Australian Coast Guard cutter Nemesis
RAN FCPB HMAS Wollongong
German SAR Launch DGzRS Berln
SS Geest Atlas (Building)
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby MikeJames » 28 Mar 2017 14:39

In related news...

Choules sails for cyclone support

Published on 27 March 2017 CMDR Chloe Griggs (author), LSIS Bradley Darvill (photographer)

Image
HMAS Choules has sailed to support communities that may be affected by Tropical Cyclone Debbie. (photo: LSIS Bradley Darvill)

The amphibious ship, left Sydney on 27 March as part of broader Australian Defence Force support to Queensland emergency services responding to the cyclone, which is expected to make landfall early on 28 March.

The Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin said Defence was prepared and ready to respond with immediate assistance to local communities within the storm zone in coordination with state and local disaster management authorities.

“Australian Defence Force personnel are highly trained, well equipped and experienced in providing assistance to Australian communities affected by natural disasters,” Air Chief Marshal Binskin said.

“We are ready and able to respond to this emergency in support of civilian emergency authorities and the residents of north eastern Queensland once the full impact of Debbie is known.

“As a precaution HMAS Choules is heading north to Queensland to be ready to support recovery efforts if required,” Air Chief Marshal Binskin said.

The Navy is on standby for such tasking during the cyclone season with a duty humanitarian assistance and disaster relief ship.

For this response task, two MRH90 helicopters have flown to Oakey, Queensland, to supplement existing Army and Air Force aircraft already in Townsville and Air Force aircraft in Amberley and Darwin. Army personnel and equipment are also on standby.

Defence can support emergencies with aeromedical evacuation, search and rescue, road clearance, restoration of essential services, emergency accommodation and the delivery of stores.
Last edited by MikeJames on 29 Mar 2017 07:41, edited 1 time in total.
Spartacus01
Committee
Committee
Posts: 37
Joined: 06 Nov 2012 13:19
Fleet Base: Victoria
My Ship Yard: Z39 Zerstorer German Destroyer 1/72
HMS Triumph Trafalgar Class Submarine 1/72
USS Shiloh - CG67 Ticonderaga Class Cruiser 1/96
USS Bulkeley - DDG84 Oscar Austin Class Destroyer 1/96
HMAS Brisbane DDG Destroyer 1/96
HMS Phoebe Leander Class Frigate 1/96
La Combattante Class FPB 1/35 (under construction)
MTB741 - Fairmile D 1/24
MTB385 - Vosper 73' Type 1 1/24
Excalibur - Melbourne Tug boat 1/24

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby Spartacus01 » 28 Mar 2017 19:25

I also heard this news this morning, and though that someone would post this.
So anyone considering making these ships should do so with faulty engines, so as to accurately replicate the originals. :tdown:
User avatar
MikeJames
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 1451
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 09:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: RAN DDL HMAS Kokoda
Australian Coast Guard cutter Nemesis
RAN FCPB HMAS Wollongong
German SAR Launch DGzRS Berln
SS Geest Atlas (Building)
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby MikeJames » 29 Mar 2017 07:44

It's interesting as although azipod propulsion is new to the RAN, it's extremely common on many civilian vessels, even the largest such as the big passenger liners.

The investigation into the faults may turn up poor RAN operating and / or maintenance practices.

Choules had to have significant engine damage repaired after she was operated contrary to the engineering and operational limits of the propulsion plant not long after we received her.

Mike
rritchie71
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 809
Joined: 27 Jan 2010 12:59
Fleet Base: Perth
My Ship Yard: HMAS Adelaide (LHD), USS Roosevelt, USS Anzio, RFS Peter the Great, Scharnhorst, HMAS Melbourne, HMAS Sydney (AWD), ITS Carlo Bergamini, HNLMS Evertsen, HMS Middelton, HMS Severn, RFS Arkangelsk, Fairplay 30, Normand Master, Fure West

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby rritchie71 » 29 Mar 2017 17:22

With the exception of the French Navy, we typically use our ships a lot more than most European navies.

So the fault my be something that has not shown up in Juan Carlos because she has not had the use of Canberra and Adelaide and may require fixing and a different maintenance schedule for the future. It's a thought.

At the end of the day, these ships and the design is totally new to us, so it is a learning curve, the timing does suck though.....

Cheers

Robert
User avatar
MikeJames
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 1451
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 09:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: RAN DDL HMAS Kokoda
Australian Coast Guard cutter Nemesis
RAN FCPB HMAS Wollongong
German SAR Launch DGzRS Berln
SS Geest Atlas (Building)
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby MikeJames » 29 Mar 2017 18:08

rritchie71 wrote:At the end of the day, these ships and the design is totally new to us, so it is a learning curve, the timing does suck though.....

Cheers

Robert


Not really, Choules was always the designated disaster relief amphib for this period, both Adelaide and Canberra were earmarked for continuing trials work throughout the next six months, with a break for Talisman Sabre.

The unfortunate lack of availability aside Choules was always going to the amphib heading north to assist in the Post-Debbie cleanup.

Mike
Last edited by MikeJames on 30 Mar 2017 13:54, edited 1 time in total.
rritchie71
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 809
Joined: 27 Jan 2010 12:59
Fleet Base: Perth
My Ship Yard: HMAS Adelaide (LHD), USS Roosevelt, USS Anzio, RFS Peter the Great, Scharnhorst, HMAS Melbourne, HMAS Sydney (AWD), ITS Carlo Bergamini, HNLMS Evertsen, HMS Middelton, HMS Severn, RFS Arkangelsk, Fairplay 30, Normand Master, Fure West

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby rritchie71 » 29 Mar 2017 19:38

The ABC just got contradicted

Navy on the Record Response to Andrew Greene Reporting
By Aiswarya Lakshmi March 28, 2017

Recent reporting by the ABC that “Navy's largest ships unable to join Cyclone Debbie emergency response amid engine troubles” is misleading, said TW Barrett, AO, CSC, Vice Admiral, RAN, Chief of Navy.

To assert, as the ABC did in its reporting that issues with HMA Ships Canberra and Adelaide has impacted on Defence providing support to anticipated disaster relief support in North Queensland is wrong.

Under the Australian Defence Force's regular planning cycle, HMAS Choules assumed duties as the on line (ready) ship to support any Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) requirements in mid-March.

HMAS Choules is currently sailing for Brisbane to forward deploy and embark emergency stores to support the recovery efforts in the North Queensland region should it be required.

It ignores and appears not to understand the fact that the Amphibious Assault Ships HMA Ships Canberra and Adelaide are still in their operational test and evaluation period, and this is the period where issues such as the ones currently being addressed are found. It is precisely why there is a delayed evaluation and introduction into service program to ensure all aspects of the operation of these ships is considered before they reach the Full Operational Capability (FOC).

Both ships have conducted considerable trials and support to operations since being received by Defence with HMAS Adelaide having just returned from Exercise Ocean Explorer off the coast of Western Australia, and HMAS Canberra recently completed First of Class flight trials with a range of military helicopters from Army and Navy.

During these activities, a propulsion issue was identified aboard HMAS Canberra and she is currently alongside in Sydney being inspected.

As a prudent measure, the same inspections were conducted on HMAS Adelaide and identified emergent issues.

Having identified these emergent issues the Australian Defence Force has put in place a very deliberate plan to investigate the issue and resolve it.

It is too early to determine the extent of this emergent work and Defence is working to identify the causes and develop a repair strategy.

These inspections have had no impact on Defence meeting its operational tasks.
User avatar
MikeJames
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 1451
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 09:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: RAN DDL HMAS Kokoda
Australian Coast Guard cutter Nemesis
RAN FCPB HMAS Wollongong
German SAR Launch DGzRS Berln
SS Geest Atlas (Building)
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby MikeJames » 27 Apr 2017 14:21

The issue seems to be much worse than previously reported.

Royal Australian Navy investigating if botched maintenance crippled HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide
MATTHEW BENNS, The Daily Telegraph

BAFFLED navy chiefs are investigating whether botched maintenance damaged the engines of Australia’s two new $1.5 billion warships, which have been stranded in dock for more than a month.

Defence force officials admit they have no idea how long our two largest warships will be stuck at Garden Island, as engineers try to fix the state-of-art engines.

Navy sources have told The Daily Telegraph a series of alarming concerns have emerged about the maintenance of HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide, with even basic oil changes botched.

Labor’s defence spokesman Richard Marles demanded the government clarify what was wrong with the ships.

“Australia has two defence ministers looking after HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide,” Mr Marles said.

“One of those ministers needs to come out today and tell us what is going on with these ships.

“One of those ministers needs to come out today and tell us what they’re doing to get these ships into service.”

Experts have been flown out from Spain to try to solve the fiasco, which threatens to hit crucial war games with the Americans in July.

The vessels were built to be the nation’s major responders to natural disasters but when Cyclone Debbie hit neither could leave Sydney Harbour.

The Spanish-designed 27,000-tonne amphibious assault ships cost $1.5 billion each but the hi-tech azimuth propulsion systems on HMAS Canberra broke down during trials for helicopter take off and landings off the coast of Queensland.

Sources said sensors in the new age engine pods gave a warning about rising water levels. Officers immediately went into a short stop routine in response to the problem.

After the ship was escorted back into Sydney Harbour by tug boats an investigation found maintenance and oil changes were not being done properly. The same problems emerged on HMAS Adelaide.

A Defence spokesman confirmed the same issue with the propulsion system had been identified on both ships.

“Both Canberra and Adelaide are undergoing inspection and investigation in conjunction with Defence industry partners,” he said.

“Defence and original equipment manufacturers are working together to identify the root causes and develop a repair strategy. As a result, it is premature to speculate in regard to time frames and aspects of warranty.”

It is not known how long the HMAS Adelaide (pictured) or HMAS Canberra will be docked at Garden Island. Picture: Australian Defence Force
Manufacturer Navantia has flown a team from Spain to investigate whether the problem is a maintenance or engineering issue or related to the way the ships were being driven.

Navantia is understood to be unhappy that engines were installed by engineers from Siemens before the maintenance was handed over to engineers from BAE.

David Feeney, who sits on Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee for Defence, said he feared the ships would not be ready for planned joint exercises called Talisman Sabre with the Americans in July.

ENDS

There are some suggestions that all four azipod gearboxes will need to be completely replaced due to the damage caused by incorrect use of the wrong lubricant, something handled by the contractor responsible for maintenance.

If true they are looking at very large dollars and as these parts are not available at the Bunnings down the road but have to be made to order, there's a real question if either will make Talisman Sabre.
User avatar
RussF172
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 08 Feb 2010 08:53
Fleet Base: Hunter Central
My Ship Yard: USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL (DDG-81)
HMAS HOBART (DDGH-39)
HMAS CANBERRA (LHD-02)
HMAS NEWCASTLE (FFG-06)
HMAS ARUNTA (FFH-151)
WRS RUSHCUTTER (A-51) Weapon Recovery/Training/Drone launch ship
Location: Uralla, NSW
Contact:

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby RussF172 » 27 Apr 2017 18:41

Alan can make them up new ones. He's doing mine ;) I read another article from Mike Noonan (DCN) who was stating that the story that was published on ANZAC Day is rubbish and that it is a media beat up. Not sure what to believe as they have had problems with CANBERRA before when the electrical system was overloaded when doing drills.
kimwhite
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 412
Joined: 05 Feb 2010 18:32
Fleet Base: Victoria
My Ship Yard: HMS Heather (Flower Corvette 1942, under construction), HMS Glamorgan 1981 (under construction)

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby kimwhite » 20 May 2017 16:49

Just read on the news tonight the newest theory is that the root of the problem is a BASIC DESIGN FAULT.

If that is true, are we now looking at "Collins Class Mk II"? Billions of dollars spent and the damned things may be inherently flawed.

Looking at the RAN's poor history in procurement (overweight and underpowered patrol boats, the FFGs that broke in the middle, the Collins submarines, and probably some others I've not heard of), if this latest claim is true then sorry, I have lost all faith in our Navy. It must be run by total idiots.
Arrrgghhhh!
Kim
User avatar
sjbatche
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 146
Joined: 30 Jan 2010 10:48
Fleet Base: Wagga Wagga
My Ship Yard: HMAS Wollongong(1) - J172 - Bathurst Class Corvette
HMAS Wollongong(2) - 206 - Fremantle Class Patrol Boat
HMAS Wollongong(3) - 92 - Armidale Class Patrol Boat
HMAS Attack - 90 - Patrol Boat
HMAS Ballarat - 155 - Anzac FFH
HMAS Norman - 84 - Huon Class Mine Hunter
HMAS Brunei - L127 - Landing Craft Heavy
HMAS Rushcutter - M80 - Mine Hunter Catamaran
PSS President H.I. Remeliik 001 - Pacific Forum Patrol Boat
HMAS Dechaineux - 76 - Collins Class Submarine (under construction)
HMAS Otway - 59 - Oberon Class Submarine
HTS Curruwong - HTS502 - Harbour Tug Small
Harbour Defence Motor Launch (under construction)
STS Young Endeavour (under construction)
ATF Powhattan Class Fleet Tug (under construction)
Location: Wagga Wagga
Contact:

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby sjbatche » 20 May 2017 21:51

A pretty big call Kim, “must be run by total idiots”. From my limited experience in the defence force (39 years and still happy in the service), the men and women of our Defence force are some of the most highly trained and well educated people you will find. Particularly the ones running the show as they have a vast background in many disciplines. They have proven themselves in a very competitive environment to get to where they are. They know far more about highly technical military equipment than the journalists who manufacture stories daily.

Of note; the Navy is the end user customer when it comes to procuring new capital equipment such as the LHD’s or submarines or FFG’s etc. Generally Navy do not design it, build it or buy it. That is done by others outside of Navy, although Navy specialists do provide advice and support to these organisations. Capability And Sustainment Group (CASG) buy the equipment on behalf of Defence from large multinational companies who promise that they can supply exactly what is asked for. Despite rigorous evaluation of each option during tender evaluation, rarely does this promise turn into reality in the short term. The complexity of modern military equipment means that it can take many years to reach a Final Operating Capability even with proven designs. I would be more than happy to explain the Defence procurement process to you one day if you had several hours.

Australia’s procurement policy for much of our Defence equipment is to aim for the technological edge to meet our specific and unique needs. This brings with it significant risk in time, cost and the chance that things won’t work as expected when they are put under pressure. This is all taken into consideration during the procurement process particularly for cutting edge or unproven technologies. But guess what, sometimes things just break and it takes time to figure out why it happened and how to fix it.

Blaming those “ idiots” in Defence for shortfalls in performance of capital equipment is easy and it is something that the media does all too often. More often than not though this is far from the reality of the situation. Several times recently Chief of Navy has been concerned enough about this misinformation that he has written to media outlets to inform them of their incorrect reporting but you don’t often hear about that.

There is a general lack of understanding in the community of how Defence works and why certain capabilities are procured over others. Sensationalist media coverage of Defence activities only devalues the important contribution that Defence makes. It does not help foster community support for all those well trained and educated people who volunteer to serve their country.

Steve B.
kimwhite
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 412
Joined: 05 Feb 2010 18:32
Fleet Base: Victoria
My Ship Yard: HMS Heather (Flower Corvette 1942, under construction), HMS Glamorgan 1981 (under construction)

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby kimwhite » 22 May 2017 09:37

Hi Steve
Please don't misunderstand me. I am quite sure that the majority of our Defence Force personnel ARE experienced, highly trained, and well educated, and certainly more knowledgable than journalists. If it is any consolation, I have a very low opinion of our current rising crop of journalists too! Unable to speak correctly, unable to undertake basic research, poor understanding of correct grammar, lazy with facts.

But while I'd accept that the rank and file are excellent, I simply cannot accept that our top brass are, based on their past record, up to the job. Certainly they just cannot be trusted to make competent decisions on big-ticket military items.

You are telling me that " the Navy do not design it, build it or buy it. That is done by others outside of Navy, although Navy specialists do provide advice and support to these organisations." Well, if the Navy is offering competent advice, why did we end up with our early dud patrol boats, the FFGs, and the Collins?

You really ought to get hold of a book by R.J. Daniel, titled The End of an Era - The Memoirs of a Naval Constructor.
Mr Daniel was a former Head of the RCNC and a Board Member of Warship Building, British Shipbuilders. While Daniel writes mostly about RN ships and submarines, he does relate some interesting stories about our first patrol boats and the incompetence of the RAN with respect to them, about our FFG procurement, and about the events leading up to acceptance of the Collins. Did you know that RCNC, via Daniels, warned us before we ordered the FFGs that they would break the superstructures? But we got them anyway.

And please don't get me started on the Collins. We don't have the time or space to list the disasters. But Daniel has some very interesting background in his book, none of which are at all complimentary to the brain power or professionalism of the upper echelons of the RAN.

Steve, you said that "Australia’s procurement policy for much of our Defence equipment is to aim for the technological edge to meet our specific and unique needs. This brings with it significant risk in time, cost and the chance that things won’t work as expected when they are put under pressure. This is all taken into consideration during the procurement process particularly for cutting edge or unproven technologies. But guess what, sometimes things just break and it takes time to figure out why it happened and how to fix it."

Sorry, I don't agree. Australia doesn't have " specific and unique" (defence) needs. We are not a special case. We have the same defence needs as every other maritime country in the world. What works for the UK and the USA would work for us. We have NO NEED to be experimenting with " cutting edge or unproven" technologies. It is a foolish, expensive luxury.

Take a minute to consider what our Defence Force is actually FOR. Disregard the fancy crap, it is here to deter enemies from attacking us, to defend our borders from incursions by foreign powers, and to enforce by military action any political decisions our Govt lawfully decides are necessary beyond our borders. That is the basic mission statement.

Now, who are our "possible" future combatants? Papua New Guinea? Don't think so! New Zealand? Hardly. Malaysia or Indonesia? Possible, but still unlikely. China? Possible, but again, China would have stirred up a lot of opposition before they could even reach us with an invasion force, so on balance not likely.

The fact is, almost all our "possible" enemies are armed with fairly unsophisticated weapons and we don't NEED cutting edge unproven weapons to fight them. What we NEED are weapons which actually work NOW. We need proven equipment that is already in use and has a proven track record for reliability.

Yet the “ idiots” in Defence DO still saddle us with stuff that doesn't work, or stuff we just don't need at all!
An example! Tell me what use our 100 Leopard tanks, or their replacements, were ever good for except parades? Nothing.
Studies have shown that any invader would have such a bad time operating in the north of Australia that we simply don't need a force of MBTs. The money would have been far better spent on air cav units, light armoured vehicles, and air-mobile artillery.

You say "There is a general lack of understanding in the community of how Defence works".
I would suggest that Defence doesn't know either.

I understand, and do share, your pride in our Defence Force, but the past track record of the Navy especially gives me no confidence that our current system can be trusted to deliver weapons systems that do what we want, reliably and at an acceptable cost.
User avatar
RussF172
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 08 Feb 2010 08:53
Fleet Base: Hunter Central
My Ship Yard: USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL (DDG-81)
HMAS HOBART (DDGH-39)
HMAS CANBERRA (LHD-02)
HMAS NEWCASTLE (FFG-06)
HMAS ARUNTA (FFH-151)
WRS RUSHCUTTER (A-51) Weapon Recovery/Training/Drone launch ship
Location: Uralla, NSW
Contact:

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby RussF172 » 23 May 2017 12:40

I was listening to a report on the LHD issue the other evening. Most of their information was incorrect stating that the LHD hulls only were built in Spain and that everything else was then fitted in Australia so the Australian contractor was to blame as they fitted the engines and pods. What a load of crap. The pods and engines were all fitted in Spain. It appears that the pods are the issue with seals leaking which causes oil loss which causes wear on the gearing of the pods which has caused the metal fragments in the oil. I don't believe this is really a major issue. I've heard all sorts of gossip around it. One report even saying that the navy is looking at removing the pods and then installing conventional shafts and rudders. Where do these idiots come up with this stuff. Anything to get a rise out of the public to make out that defence does not know what they are doing. :taz:
phillip08
Vice President
Vice President
Posts: 37
Joined: 26 Mar 2010 12:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: HMAS Vendetta II
HMAS Sydney II
HMAS Hobart (under construction)
HMAS Parramatta (under construction)
HMAS Sydney FFG (under construction)

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby phillip08 » 23 May 2017 13:53

There has been a lot gossip around on the issues with the pods 99% of it rumour or hear say, the organisation that has the maintenance contract has been very quite on the matter.
I'm sure the appropriate heads will roll if they have not done so already.

There's been some interesting exchanges on equipment supply, who does what and whom advises whom. The bottom line with the major equipment purchase process is very simple those that know (the in uniform end users) start the process from there we end up with Project Teams made up of representatives from Defence & DMO and some times Treasurey/Finance who in the end advise the Defence Dept of their preference, the Dept in turn presents the outcomes the minister, who inturn (depending on the value) will put it to Cabinet. The process then goes to due diliengnce etc. Over the last decade a lot of the decisions were based on Ministerial over rides driven by all or some of the intertested parties. Everyone from the bean counters, those within Defence, DMO pushing their own agenda or MP's/Senators doing the same thing. There's been enough dodgy outcomes to indicate the what happens when the uniforms of all colours are ignored.

I saw Russ's post on what he is putting on the his LPA, if they ever let us into the ADFA pool again Russ add some Viper's instead of the Tigers to the F35B's and Osprey's and I will turn up with a proposed Future Frigate to escort it. (After that they would most likey not let the pair of us back again but it would be worth it for the stir factor).

Cheers
Phil
User avatar
MikeJames
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 1451
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 09:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: RAN DDL HMAS Kokoda
Australian Coast Guard cutter Nemesis
RAN FCPB HMAS Wollongong
German SAR Launch DGzRS Berln
SS Geest Atlas (Building)
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby MikeJames » 23 May 2017 15:46

I will also make a few points.

The ADF is often the customer without the decision-making responsibility for purchases.

Navy say we need to replace our aging FFG frigates. Then the bureaucrats, the finance people, the technocrats and the politicians get involved.

If it was up to the RAN they would have taken advantage of the amazing deals from the US and bought the latest iterations of the Arleigh Burke class. Around $1.5 billion a boat, guaranteed delivery dates, everything already integrated and pretty much a turn-key solution.

Then Navy gets sidelined.

The Bureaucrats say "Must be built here to maximise local jobs and the industrial base"
The Finance People say "Too much foreign exchange expenditure, spend the money here"
The Tecnocrats say 'Not designed for our unique circumstances, integrate all these special requirements and equipment"
The Politicians say 'Build it here in Australia, preferably in a marginal electorate"

The result is that whichever consortium can get to each of these influence groups the most wins the contract, with Navy plaintively pointing to the initial budget and operational requirements while being ignored by the other groups.

So we end up with an "Air Warfare Destroyer" which is in fact a frigate, so designated by the company that designed and built it and the Navy that operates it, which has an inferior weapons, sensor and helicopter loadout compared to other nation's anti-air destroyers, which is years late and billions of dollars over budget.

Then Navy cops it in the neck for something they had almost no say in.

This is not unique to Navy by the way. Ask the Army about those flying lemons the Tiger and Taipan. Or Air Force about the 737 VIP aircraft and the surveillance drone program.

The services too often carry the can for others bad decisions.

Mike
Last edited by MikeJames on 27 May 2017 14:10, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RussF172
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 08 Feb 2010 08:53
Fleet Base: Hunter Central
My Ship Yard: USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL (DDG-81)
HMAS HOBART (DDGH-39)
HMAS CANBERRA (LHD-02)
HMAS NEWCASTLE (FFG-06)
HMAS ARUNTA (FFH-151)
WRS RUSHCUTTER (A-51) Weapon Recovery/Training/Drone launch ship
Location: Uralla, NSW
Contact:

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby RussF172 » 23 May 2017 18:30

Exactly what Mike said. I remember the look on the CN's face Vice-Adm Russ Shalders back when the decision was made on the AWD. He was not a happy camper but ordered to smile and look happy by little Johnny Howard. He went back to his office straight afterwards and wrote his resignation letter to be effective immediately. It was rejected by the defence minister. Navy wanted the Gibbs and Cox design and it was the preferred one all along. Phil. I think we could put a real cat amoungt the the pigeons with an LHD covered in F-35B as well as Vipers in Australian Army Aviation markings, maybe a MV-22B with roundels. I have a plan to do a couple F-35Bs in a retro scheme of grey/white and red checker tail, another with blue tail and yellow flash and maybe a couple in the wrap around dark grey/duck egg blue scheme. We will be :ban:
User avatar
MikeJames
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 1451
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 09:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: RAN DDL HMAS Kokoda
Australian Coast Guard cutter Nemesis
RAN FCPB HMAS Wollongong
German SAR Launch DGzRS Berln
SS Geest Atlas (Building)
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby MikeJames » 25 May 2017 14:50

The only reason the Gibbs and Cox version was preferred was that it was the preferred one if we absolutely had to build it here.

Navy really wanted the latest Arleigh Burke class, off the US production Line with a guaranteed price and a guaranteed delivery schedule, to avoid the project descending into the costly morass it has become.

The arguments that we have to buld it here to maintain it here make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

We didn't buld the three DDGs here and maintained them for over 30 years. Same with the first four FFGs, and the Oberons.

Pointing to local shipyards for maintenance is a joke, Garden Island built Success and then promptly closed, which doesn't seem to have affected the ship's availability for almost 30 years. Same with Tobruk, she's never been maintained at Carrington Slipway.

The two FFGs and eight Anzacs do not get maintained at the ex-Tenix, now BAE-systems slipway in Williamstown.

Frankly, building warships in Australia is an expensive job creation scheme, designed to prop up marginal electorates and mendicant states.

For the price of the three AWD fiasco, the RAN could have replaced all six of the FFGs with six Arleigh Burkes, and have them all in service by now.

Mike
glenhowells
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 204
Joined: 06 Nov 2012 23:09
Fleet Base: Perth
My Ship Yard: HMAS Derwent
HMAS Swan (building)
HMAS Tarakan (building)
HMS Hermes (Hull being built)

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby glenhowells » 26 May 2017 01:31

First off we have gone off topic with this subject it's about the LHD's. Not about what we should have and who is or is not building them. So with saying that i am not very happy with your second last line Mike Mendicant have not seen that word before so i looked it up in the dictionary the meaning of this word is characteristic of a beggar. Maybe S.A. and W.A. are prepared to build warships not beggars at all, and marginal electorates. Yes we not as populated as the Eastern states but we are just as important as the rest of the country. So if you want to insult people that's fine but this is not the place. I will say it again we are a model club not a political movement. Lets drop the political crap. I'm a West Aussie and PROUD to be one.

Glen
User avatar
MikeJames
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 1451
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 09:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: RAN DDL HMAS Kokoda
Australian Coast Guard cutter Nemesis
RAN FCPB HMAS Wollongong
German SAR Launch DGzRS Berln
SS Geest Atlas (Building)
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby MikeJames » 26 May 2017 22:23

Glenn, I understand that you may take issue with the term mendicant, and I apologise for using that word.

The Government is prepared to support shipbuilding in South Australia primarily to prop up marginal seats in South Australia and incidentally because there are existing facilities there. That second one was only marginally incidental to the decision, the AWD could have been built at BAE Systems shipyard in Melbourne more than successfully, but that area isn't a coalition marginal seat, it's seen as blue-ribbon Labour so that's why it wasn't chosen.

Similarly, the shipyard to build the OPV and Follow on frigates could have been any one of a number of capable shipyards, but once again political factors came to play. Building in WA props up the coalition there, whereas most of the other potential sites are safe labour seats and therefore didn't come into the calculation. After all, why hand steel shipbuilding to a company with no experience or expertise in doing so when there are other shipyards with that expertise already established. BAE Systems in Melbourne being a prime candidate. Instead the coalition was willing to take the risks on Austal building steel ships to prop up the coalition electoral chances in WA.

It is generally accepted within Defence and the wider government, that defence production in Australia has become a political football, with where contracts specify manufacture to be more important than cost or other benefits. The suggestion that the new Army vehicles may be built or assembled in South Australia, even though the production facilities will have to be created from scratch, rather than take advantage of existing production facilities in Bendigo, is a case in point.

To finalise, the issue that defence contracts are issued on their merits is demonstrably false, with political imperatives overriding industrial, technical and financial imperatives and common sense. Basically the Commonwealth is prepared to waste extravagant sums of public money in vastly inefficient and badly managed defence projects to prop up their electoral results in marginal electorates, with South Australia in particular a beneficiary of this.

While there is much more that could be said I will let the subject go.

Mike
kimwhite
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 412
Joined: 05 Feb 2010 18:32
Fleet Base: Victoria
My Ship Yard: HMS Heather (Flower Corvette 1942, under construction), HMS Glamorgan 1981 (under construction)

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby kimwhite » 30 May 2017 05:36

Sorry to keep this ball rolling, and YES it did get a bit OT from what it was all about, but I've been reading all the above comments about how our defence, and especially NAVAL, needs have been subverted by political expediency. I was impressed by the depth of knowledge Mike and Russ have on the topic!

So, I am now going to ask if Mike and Russ would form their own little sub-committee of two to write a short essay that sets out a succinct history on just how badly the politicians HAVE screwed the Defence Forces over the past decades, with examples and rough costings if at all possible, and make it as simple as you can so any IDIOT (like a politician or a journalist) can grasp the basics.

Then give it a catchy title, maybe the TASKFORCE 72 White Paper on Political Defence Bungling?

If you two can do that, I guarantee that I for one will send a copy to my local Federal MP and the local media and demand that they start reassessing how we buy things. If EVERYONE does it, maybe the issue might get picked up by a major media outlet?

Things don't happen unless people are prepared to act. I don't think that just because this is a model boat club we can't do something to help our Navy. After all, we all love ships, don't we, or you would not be in TF72?!!

I'm the sort of person who, if I see a head, I will kick it. Mike and Russ, want to kick some heads? If YES, start a new thread in GENERAL and title it the HEAD KICKERS. Lets do this thing. :yes:
Kim
User avatar
MikeJames
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 1451
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 09:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: RAN DDL HMAS Kokoda
Australian Coast Guard cutter Nemesis
RAN FCPB HMAS Wollongong
German SAR Launch DGzRS Berln
SS Geest Atlas (Building)
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby MikeJames » 30 May 2017 12:37

Russ couldn't, he relies on the Defence Department and the defence industry for his livelihood and that would be a guaranteed way to get onto their shit list.

I can't given I work indirectly for the Defence Minister's partner, know the Defence Minister socially and as a Government employee I'm not supposed to be supporting partisan political aims, which your requested document would be perceived as, despite both sides of politics being equally culpable.

Sorry :(

Mike
User avatar
RussF172
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 08 Feb 2010 08:53
Fleet Base: Hunter Central
My Ship Yard: USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL (DDG-81)
HMAS HOBART (DDGH-39)
HMAS CANBERRA (LHD-02)
HMAS NEWCASTLE (FFG-06)
HMAS ARUNTA (FFH-151)
WRS RUSHCUTTER (A-51) Weapon Recovery/Training/Drone launch ship
Location: Uralla, NSW
Contact:

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby RussF172 » 30 May 2017 18:51

There is not a hope in hell that I would write an article on this subject. End of story, full stop.
phillip08
Vice President
Vice President
Posts: 37
Joined: 26 Mar 2010 12:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: HMAS Vendetta II
HMAS Sydney II
HMAS Hobart (under construction)
HMAS Parramatta (under construction)
HMAS Sydney FFG (under construction)

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby phillip08 » 31 May 2017 09:47

I'm in the same position as Russ and Mike, because of my involvement with various projects and GVT I can express a board view but not specifically comment publicly on any actions as I'm tied up by all three GVT O.S. Act's.

Over a few drinks between us it would be a lively discussion topic.

Regards
Phil
littoralcombat
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 211
Joined: 11 Sep 2013 15:30
Fleet Base: Perth
My Ship Yard: Building HMS Leeds Castle P258, HMS Bristol D23, HMS Broadsword F88, Forward Planning for HMS Invincible R05
Location: Secret Harbour, WA

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby littoralcombat » 31 May 2017 20:03

This is a Model Ship Club, not a Political Movement or Lobby Group. I for one would not support any use of the Club name or logo for such purposes. There is enough damage done, and insults dished out as it is, without adding more. I dread to think what our Patron (see top of page) thinks of what is written on this Forum sometimes.
Everyone is entitled to write to their MP regarding any issue they are concerned about, but please leave our Hobby out of it. :offt:

Nige
User avatar
RussF172
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 08 Feb 2010 08:53
Fleet Base: Hunter Central
My Ship Yard: USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL (DDG-81)
HMAS HOBART (DDGH-39)
HMAS CANBERRA (LHD-02)
HMAS NEWCASTLE (FFG-06)
HMAS ARUNTA (FFH-151)
WRS RUSHCUTTER (A-51) Weapon Recovery/Training/Drone launch ship
Location: Uralla, NSW
Contact:

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby RussF172 » 01 Jun 2017 09:48

Exactly.
User avatar
MikeJames
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 1451
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 09:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: RAN DDL HMAS Kokoda
Australian Coast Guard cutter Nemesis
RAN FCPB HMAS Wollongong
German SAR Launch DGzRS Berln
SS Geest Atlas (Building)
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby MikeJames » 26 Jun 2017 11:19

LHD Canberra pod trial results clear as investigation continues

23 Jun 2017

Patrick Durrant | Sydney

Image
Visible here as the ship was prepared for re-floating following delivery from Spain is the Canberra's port azimuth propulsion pod.


A Defence spokesperson has responded to ADM questions regarding the outcome of propulsion pod trials conducted on LHD HMAS Canberra recently.
Both she and her sister HMAS Adelaide have been the subject of an intensive investigation after the latter vessel (currently in the Fleet Base East Captain Cook Graving Dock) suffered defects within its azimuth propulsion pod systems.

On 29th May, Chief of Navy Vice Admiral Tim Barrett testified before a Senate Estimates hearing of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that trials had been conducted on HMAS Canberra between 17th and 18th May 2017, and that the test results of oil samples taken during those trials would be available within two weeks from the date of the hearing.

The spokesperson's response follows:
“Subsequent to the work completed in HMAS Canberra alongside, a successful sea trials program was conducted with no demonstration of oil migration across the propulsion pod seals.

“Metal particulate levels in Canberra have been closely monitored throughout the sea trials and have not exceeded normal and acceptable levels. There is no evidence of excessive bearing loads in Canberra.

“The propulsion system has been recertified for seagoing operations with limited operational restriction in place until Canberra’s planned docking in Quarter 3 this year. This validates the disciplined and rigorous engineering approach to addressing propulsion pod issues.

“Defence is working closely with original equipment manufacturers BAE, Navantia and Siemens to identify the root causes.

“The forensic investigation surrounding the issues is ongoing.

“Following analysis and advice from industry partners, Navy is continuing planning for Canberra to participate in Exercise TALISMAN SABRE 17.”
rritchie71
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 809
Joined: 27 Jan 2010 12:59
Fleet Base: Perth
My Ship Yard: HMAS Adelaide (LHD), USS Roosevelt, USS Anzio, RFS Peter the Great, Scharnhorst, HMAS Melbourne, HMAS Sydney (AWD), ITS Carlo Bergamini, HNLMS Evertsen, HMS Middelton, HMS Severn, RFS Arkangelsk, Fairplay 30, Normand Master, Fure West

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby rritchie71 » 02 Jul 2017 19:33

Adelaide is back in the water, Canberra I believe has already put to sea

User avatar
MikeJames
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 1451
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 09:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: RAN DDL HMAS Kokoda
Australian Coast Guard cutter Nemesis
RAN FCPB HMAS Wollongong
German SAR Launch DGzRS Berln
SS Geest Atlas (Building)
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Amphib issues prevent LPAs support for Cyclone Debbie clean up

Postby MikeJames » 30 Aug 2017 13:06

As an aside, I was in a meeting in the MLC building on the 49th floor this morning, the room had a great view of over the Harbour and I got to watch HMAS Sirius come through the heads and down the harbour before being berthed at West Dock wall.

It's interesting that one of the largest ships in the fleet was completeky hidden behind the huge bulk of one of the LPH's which was berthed at the northern end of FBE.

It was only that I was watching from such a high vantage point that you could see any of Sirius' superstructure behind (I think it was) Canberra.

They are bloody huge.

Mike

Return to “Australian Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahoythere